lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CPU Hotplug: Hotplug Script And SIGPWR
Tim Hockin wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:43:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>>I think the sanest thing for a CPU removal is to migrate everything off the
>>>processor in question, move unrunnable tasks into TASK_UNRUNNABLE state,
>>>then notify /sbin/hotplug. The hotplug script can then find and handle the
>>>unrunnable tasks. No SIGPWR grossness needed.
>>>
>>
>>Seems less robust and more ad hoc than SIGPWR, however.
>
>
> Disagree. SIGPWR will kill any process that doesn't catch it. That's
> policy. It seems more robust to let the hotplug script decide what to do.
> If it wants to kill each unrunnable task with SIGPWR, it can. But if it
> wants to let them live, it can.

This seems like a problem that a lot of power-management issues have.
(At some point, linux may want to suspend itself after inactivity. Both
RT tasks and some interactive tasks may want to supress that.) Why not
add a SIGPM signal, which is only sent if handles, and which indicates
that PM event is happening. Give usermode some method of responding to
it (e.g. handler returns a value, or a new syscall), and let
/sbin/hotplug handle events for tasks that either ignore the signal or
responded that they were uninterested. This seems be close to optimal
for every case I can think of.

--Andy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.101 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site